This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the case involves a gang‑related murder for which a jury found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the defendant received a life‑sentence after a single trial.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the petitioner argues that the Sixth Circuit erred in finding the Michigan Supreme Court’s double‑jeopardy decision unreasonable.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), under the AEDPA, habeas relief is barred when a state court’s factual determinations are reasonable.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the petitioner contends that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was reasonable and correct.
According to Petitioner, aEDPA requires the court to assess whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling was a clearly unreasonable application of law.
According to Petitioner, the Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged that a docket entry is a required formality but allegedly failed to notice that such an entry existed in this case.
According to Petitioner, the State allegedly omitted the docket entry from its appendix, violating Michigan court rules.
According to Petitioner, the Michigan Supreme Court was apparently unaware of the dispositive docket entry.
According to Petitioner, the respondent claims that the Michigan Supreme Court agrees with his position on the second prong of AEDPA.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner cites United States v. Baggett, noting that an appellate court may change its mind prior to entry of judgment.
- [1] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [2] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [3] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [4] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [5] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [6] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 49
- [7] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 55
- [8] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 55
- [9] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 55
- [10] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 57
- [11] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 58
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice asked: “When you say this was a factual matter, I got the impression that as to basic facts, there really wasn’t any dispute about them.”
What each side argues
Petitioner (Janette Price, Warden)
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the case involves a gang‑related murder with a guilty verdict and life sentence.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the Sixth Circuit erred in deeming the Michigan Supreme Court’s double‑jeopardy decision unreasonable.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), aEDPA bars habeas relief when a state court’s factual findings are reasonable.
According to Petitioner (Janette Price), according to Petitioner (Janette Price), the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was reasonable and correct.
According to Petitioner, aEDPA requires checking whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling was a clearly unreasonable application.
According to Petitioner, the respondent’s position on the second prong of AEDPA is allegedly supported by the Michigan Supreme Court.
According to Petitioner, baggett case illustrates that an appellate court may change its mind before judgment is entered.
- [1] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [2] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [3] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [4] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 3
- [5] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 49
- [6] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 57
- [7] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 58
Respondent (Duyonn Andre Vincent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice asked whether there was any dispute about the basic facts.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned the special situation of deciding on immunity grounds.
Justice Scalia asked about the distinction between appellate review and trial‑court review.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg was addressed regarding a granted motion versus a directed verdict.
Justice Stevens asked whether the issue had been raised in rehearing.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired how the failure to grant rehearing should be explained.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens questioned whether the matter was discretionary in a criminal case.
Justice Stevens asked if an error of law had been brought to the court’s attention.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens posed a hypothetical: if the docket entry caused an acquittal under Michigan law, would that also mean acquittal under Federal law?
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens clarified the logical chain that an acquittal under Michigan law would invoke the Double Jeopardy Clause federally.
- [1] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 4
- [2] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 20
- [3] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 40
- [4] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 54
- [5] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 55
- [6] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 55
- [7] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 55
- [8] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 56
- [9] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 56
- [10] ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- ae55520ac7c0b439c268-r1-c21e2ad6ac90d01f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.